noticing, appears to me not less unfortunate in his endeavours to illustrate the advantages and moral tendency of his doctrine, than in his attempts to define or to prove it. He is of opinion that this supposed method of redemption by the blood of Christ, was intended, and is admirably suited, to "secure the Divine authority;" but I am utterly at a loss to imagine what definite views he can entertain of its suitableness to this purpose. He is most anxious to guard against the suspicion, that he entertains the doctrine of vicarious punishment, or of satisfaction to Divine justice. In what way, then, has the death of Christ secured the Divine authority; or what security can this authority ever need? I fear your correspondent will be again compelled to reply, that "this is not a necessary inquiry, neither can we find any formal answer to it in the Scripture." Yet is it not clearly evident, that if any such thing were contemplated in the scheme of redemption, its whole efficacy must be lost, unless we can be made to understand how it tends to this purpose? Your correspondent has further presented us with the following illustration of his doctrine: "A father has many children, all of whom but one have joined in an act of disobedience; and, moreover, ill-treated the dutiful child for his singularity: they become sorry for their fault; but the father prescribes, as the condition of forgiveness, that the dutiful child shall solicit pardon for the others." Nothing, surely, could be conceived of less happy than this illustration. A wise and good father, when convinced that his offending children repented of their disobedience, and were become fit objects of his forgiveness, a father, whose heart rejoiced to behold the returning affection of his offspring, would scorn the trick of appearing (for it could be only appearance) to need the propitiating intercession of a more dutiful child, before he could be induced to manifest the natural dispositions of a parent's bosom. I am surprised it did not occur to the mind of your correspondent, when penning this exemplification of his doctrine, that a much less fallible judge of the influence of Christian truth, than either he or I can presume to be, had already chosen this same method of illustrating the mercy of God, by a comparison borrowed from the natural relation of child and parent. Jesus, however, has entirely omitted in his description, that which your correspondent deems so essential to the finishing of the picture. I allude to our Lord's touching parable of the Prodigal Son, in which I cannot find that the elder son, though he had always "served" his father and never "transgressed his commandment," was obliged to solicit pardon for the returning prodigal, before the father "had compassion, and ran, and fell upon his neck, and kissed him." I must beg to be excused, Sir, in saying that I rather prefer the Saviour's parable in its origi nal form; for I cannot think that it has gained much, either of simplicity or of pathos, by your correspondent's ingenious addition. It may at length be inquired,— What then is the Scripture doctrine of redemption by the blood of Christ? In my humble opinion, it cannot be justly said that there is any such doctrine in the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Scriptures is this, that if men repent of their sins, and turn unto God in contrition of heart, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, he is always mercifully disposed to forgive their past transgressions, and to restore them to his favour and Jesus Christ is the "Mediator between God and men," by whom this joyful assurance has been proclaimed and confirmed to the world. With respect to the association of our Lord's death with this great doctrine of the gospel, it will certainly appear, upon examination, to be comparatively rare in the Scriptures, even should it be proved to occur at all; and that it does occur, is probably to be regarded merely as an accommodation of Jewish ideas and phraseology, to the circumstances of the Christian revelation; a practice very natural, indeed, in Christ and the apostles, and, doubtless, to the mind of a Jew very illustrative, but not intended to convey in itself any doctrine, other than that which is much more frequently expressed without any such allusion. H. ACTON. these foes of the rights of human nature: our commerce has been destroyed, our cities burnt, our houses plundered, our women sacrificed to brutal lust, our children murdered, and even the hoary head of age has oftentimes glutted their savage malice. These are indisputable facts, and will, I hope, be recorded by the faithful historian, to the everlasting infamy and disgrace of Britain; and almost tempt us to imitate the example of the parent of Hannibal, and swear the rising gene A FAVOURABLE opportunity ration to Christians, though we abhor offering by Mr. Austin of writing to you, in compliance with the request of your papa, as well as my own inclinations, I embrace it. There have been but few opportunities of conveyance either to or from you, and the uncertainty whether a letter would reach you has been the occasion that little else has been wrote than the place of one's abode and their state of health. But whether this meets with the fate of some others or not, I am determined to congratulate you upon our present situation. When you left your native land, it was in a state little able to defend itself, to all human appearance, against the force which had invaded it but Providence has remarkably smiled upon our virtuous exertions in defence of our injured and oppressed land, and has opened resources for us beyond our most sanguine expectations; so that we have been able not only to repel, but conquer the regular troops of Britain, the mercenaries of Germany, the savages of the Wilderness, and the still more cruel parricides of America, with one of the most celebrated British generals, Burgoyne, at their head. I have the pleasure to inform you, Sir, that the British arms have submitted to American fortitude, courage and bravery, and have received terms, though humiliating to them, the most generous ever granted to an enemy. Their deserts they never can receive in this world, nor we inflict, but must submit them to that Being who will equally distribute both rewards and punishments, and who hath assured us that he will espouse the cause of the widow, the fatherless and the oppressed. Cruel have been the depredations of But as though we their deeds, we wish them reformation and repentance. We most sincerely wish for peace upon honourable terms. Heaven is our witness that we do not rejoice in the effusion of blood, or the carnage of the human species; but having forced us to draw the sword, we are determined never to sheath it the slaves of Britons; and whether it is credited or not, it is a truth for which we have great reason to be thankful, that we are at this day in a much better situation to continue the war for six years to come, than we were to contend for six months in the commencement of it. We have defended ourselves hitherto against a force which would have shaken any kingdom in Europe, without becoming tributary to any power whatever, and trust we shall continue to, with the blessing of Heaven. Providence has permitted for wise ends, that every one of the United States should feel the cruel depredations of the enemy; that each one should be able to sympathize with the other, and this, so far from weakening, has served to strengthen our bond of union; it is a thirteen-fold cord, which all the efforts of our enemies have not been able to break. The particulars of the capture of General Burgoyne and his whole army I leave to be transmitted to you by other hands. I wish I may be able to congratulate you upon a similar account from the Southward; but whether I am or not, as the events of war are uncertain, you may rely upon it that the invincible American spirit is as far from being conquered as it was the day the cruel mandates were issued against her. Our cause, Sir, is, I trust, the cause of truth and justice, and will finally prevail, though the combined force of earth and hell rise against them. To this cause I have sacrificed much of my own personal happiness, by giving up to the councils of America one of my nearest connexions, and living for more than three years in a state of widowhood. I hope before long you will be able to return to your native land with a heart truly American; as such, no one will rejoice more to see you than your affectionate friend and former correspondent, A. A. If you can write to me with safety, a letter would be very acceptable. SIR, Liverpool, October 14, 1822. ΓΥ attempt introduce to the consideration of your readers the nature and operation of the Deeds of Trust by which our several places of worship are held, (pp. 410, 411,) seems to be thought a work of supe rerogation by your Bristol correspondent, G. P. H. (pp. 527, 528). I hope, however, I shall not offend that gentleman, when I state that his remarks have tended strongly to confirm my previous conviction of the necessity of an ample inquiry into the subject; for, notwithstanding the complacency and confidence with which he has written, it is evident that his information is extremely circumscribed. M'consideration of your G. P. H. seems to imagine that all Chapel Trust Deeds are of the same tenor; and that some one which he has happened to meet with is the identical model of the rest. Hence it is that he " really cannot understand what I aim at, or mean to express; and hence the "confusion" of which he complains. It shall be my present business, as far as I am able, to dispel this confusion, and to enter into a brief detail, with a view to elucidate my former letter, which I hoped was already sufficiently intelligible. G. P. H. may be very correct in representing that, "by the usual mode of settling trust property of this description, the premises are conveyed to Trustees, so as to vest the legal estate in them, upon trust for such person for the time being, as the major part of the subscribing congregation shall elect to the office of mi nister;" and it will no doubt surprise him to learn that this very mode is objected to on two grounds; first, because it is contended that the chapel may be virtually wrested from the trustees by the election of a minister not to their taste, either in consequence of dissension in the congregation, or of stratagem among rival sects, who, it is imagined, may insidiously cause such a number of their own people to subscribe, in order to obtain the right of voting, as would outnumber the congregation: and, secondly, because it is thought expedient to prevent the minister from having that permanent occupation of the pulpit which has seemed in some cases to place him out of the reach of responsibility or removal. To what extent the founders of other chapels, to whose Trust Deeds I have referred, have been influenced by these considerations, it is not in my power to say. I understand that in one case they have been brought into full operation, and that it has been the work of much study__and correspondence so to frame a Trust Deed as to guard the property in the building against every possible contingency of this nature. Chapels have been erected in many places at the cost of one or more individuals, who, "taking no thought for the morrow," have assigned them to Trustees in the usual form which G. P. H. describes; but in other places the parties subscribing have been either unable or unwilling to give their money; and have therefore received in exchange a certain proportion of the building. G. P. H. can surely understand why such persons do not choose to play the part of what he terms legal mutes;" why it would not answer their purpose to convey the chapel in trust for the officiating minister; and why the restraints have been ordained on the subcribing congregation, against which I think it right to protest. Let me not be supposed to complain that persons who contribute to the building of places of worship do not give their money; or that they are careful to secure to themselves that share of the property which they consent to receive as an equivalent. On the contrary, I am anxious to acknowledge (in order to prevent future misapprehension) that I see in this nothing to censure, or which may not be commendable. But I do complain that any body of Dissenters, and more especially of Unitarian Dissenters, should arrogate a power which is justly odious: I do complain that in guarding their own pecuniary rights, they seek to violate the personal rights of others to exact in the name of security the forfeiture of that independence of mind which money cannot purchase, and which must cease to exist in those who cease to withstand such unreasonable pretensions. SIR, I.* B. Harrowgate, October 14, 1822. YOUR correspondent G. P. H, Trustees to do their duty, or to keep within it." But I must set G. P. H. right as to the form in which the Trust Deeds of Dissenting Chapels have been drawn up. In some places Trustees have the sole right of appointment, as the Minister, without the congrega tion. In others, they are compelled to induct him-him who has a majo rity of subscribers, or renters of pew (in most cases the amount is fixed, a lower sum not giving the right to vote). In other places, the constitu tion is, that the election shall be determined by the majority of the communicants; and in others, in the way which your correspondent has stated. Thus the forms are varied;but whatever be the forms according to which the Trust Deeds have been Y in your Repository for Septem- to Tastor has all the rigi's ber last, p. 527, is perfectly correct in what he asserts respecting Trustees of Chapels and Estates, or endowments connected with them. I am pretty well acquainted with the Trust Deeds of many Dissenting Chapels, and I have seen none which give to Trustees or others the power of removing, as well as appointing the minister, or any controlling power over the Meeting-House or its proceeds, or the pulpit and congregation, or the minister; as if they were (according to J. B., pp. 410, 411) the real and ostensible occupants.' They are no such thing. Their office is, as G. P. H. says, if strongly, yet justly, "that of legal mutes, passively to subserve and support the equitable purposes of the Trust, and which they are bound to do; and have no discretion to exercise therein." The minister is the real and legal occupant; and if the place be freehold, (as many of the old establishments are,) the minister is the freeholder, and is entitled to all the rights appertaining to freehold property the same as the clergy of the Church. This has been proved and admitted on a variety of occasions in our courts. In point of fact-he is the sole landlord for the time being-the renters of pews are tenants; and, as G. P. H. has said, "a mandamus may at any time be obtained to compel the This initial was incorrectly printed Ja, p. 411. ED. which follow in G. P. H.'s statement, and whenever those rights have been invaded and the tyranny resisted, the minister has obtained redress in law, as in the cases of Godwin, Meanley and others, as well as those referred cases again occur, the support of the to in the Reports; and should similar Society for protecting the Civil Rights of Dissenters would not be wanting, or that of A BARRISTER Edinburgh, SIR, October 11, 1822 Unitarian worship at present HERE so many places of projected or in actual progress, that the manner in which they are, or are to be, invested, appears to me to be a subject deserving of discussion in your pages. The contributors to such erections cannot, I conceive, be too particular in informing themselves as which is essential to render their be to a matter, the right arrangement of nevolent intentions available for the objects which they contemplate. With the proposed Unitarian Chapel here, a view to satisfy the contributors 10 and to excite a little attention to the nature of such Trusts, as a subject of trouble you with the following re general interest and importance, marks. In making such investiments it is a principle of the greatest importance, that the Trustees and the body for whose benefit the trust is held, should be completely identified, that the former should have no separate interests from the latter, but should at all times be ready to give effect to the But wishes of their fellow-members. bere a difficulty occurs at the outset, for in Scotland, and I believe in England also, an unchartered society cannot legally hold such property in the name of its office-bearers, who are an elected body, and liable to perpetual changes, but must have its property invested in persons permanently appointed. It is proposed that our chapel shall be invested in eleven such persons, and in the survivor or survivors of their number; and in order to connect them with the society at large, and so to avoid the difficulty above stated, these eleven persons have signed a declaration, that they accept their office solely for the benefit of the rest, that they will give effect at all times to the decisions of their fellowmembers, regarding the trust which they have received from them, and that they will be ready, when required by them, to convey the property by a future Trust Deed to any persons whom the congregation may choose to appoint. Having heard of many unpleasant disputes, and even litigations, which have occurred both in England and in Scotland between the trustees of chapels and the congregations assembling in them, we are very desirous that no such unpleasant and ruinous disputes should occur among us, and we hope that the above arrangement will effectually prevent them. There is another subject intimately connected with the former, viz. the method of acquiring the rights of a member in a Christian congregation. It is obvious that to confer these upon all who may be accustomed to assemble for public worship with that congregation, would be attended with very prejudicial consequences; while, on the other hand, it is necessary to avoid all such modes of admission as would involve the well-founded objections which have been so often made to subscriptions to articles of faith. At some future period I may trouble you with a communication on this subject. EDINBURGENSIS. Attempt to illustrate Jude, ver. 9. LETTER IL SIR, inquire into the meaning of the NÓW proceed, as I proposed, to ninth verse of the Epistle of Jude, "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the Devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." The main object of Jude in this Epistle was to warn the Christians to whom it was written, against certain evil men and seducers who had privily crept in among them, whom he styles ungodly men, who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, denying the only sovereign God and our Lord Jesus Christ. He then goes on, in a variety of instances, to draw a comparison between their crimes and those of some of the most notorious sinners who, under the former dispensation, were the objects of the Divine displeasure and the subjects of the severest judgments, and predicts that the like judgments and condemnation awaited them, and would speedily be executed upon them. Both Peter and Jude describe the characters of these men very much at large. We shall only refer to that part of the description which is immediately connected with and introduces our present subject. Jude, referring to the crimes of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, (which he had just mentioned,) says, ver. 8, "These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of (blaspheme) dignities," with which he contrasts the conduct of Michael the Archangel, who, when contending with the Devil, durst not bring against him a railing, a blaspheming accusation. Peter also describes them, second Epistle ii. 10, as those" who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, as presumptuous, selfwilled, and not afraid to speak evil of (to blaspheme) dignities" he then contrasts with their conduct that of the angels, who, though greater in power and might, he says, ver. 11, 66 bring not railing (blaspheming) accusation against them before the Lord." In considering the subject, we have then to inquire, |